Logourl black
From our private database of 14,100+ case briefs...

Estee Lauder Cos., Inc. v. Batra

United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
430 F.Supp. 2d 158 (S.D.N.Y. 2006)


Facts

In 2004, Estee Lauder Companies, Inc. (Estee Lauder) (plaintiff) hired Shashi Batra (defendant) as a manager for two skin-care brands owned by Estee Lauder named Rodan and Fields (R+F) and Darphin. Batra served as the senior executive responsible for all aspects of business, including product development and marketing. Estee Lauder entrusted Batra with worldwide responsibility for R+F. Pursuant to his employment agreement, Batra was subject to a non-compete provision that prohibited him from competing with Estee Lauder anywhere he had work-related responsibilities until one year after his employment terminated. The agreement provided that Estee Lauder would pay Batra his full salary during the period that the non-compete provision was in effect. The agreement contained a choice-of-law provision designating New York law as the applicable law to the agreement. All of Estee Lauder’s senior management, including Batra, were based in New York. In 2006, Batra resigned from Estee Lauder to work for a direct competitor of Estee Lauder. Batra thereafter filed suit in California state court for a declaratory judgment that the non-compete agreement was unenforceable under California law. Estee Lauder sought a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction preventing Batra from breaching the terms of the non-compete agreement.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (Sweet, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A "yes" or "no" answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 221,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,100 briefs, keyed to 189 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.